Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "trace_cpu_idle_rcuidl".
Did you mean:
trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle
2016 Jan 28
0
[PATCH v5 4/5] x86: use mb() around clflush
...ile changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
index 9f7c21c..9decee2 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
@@ -418,9 +418,9 @@ static void mwait_idle(void)
if (!current_set_polling_and_test()) {
trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(1, smp_processor_id());
if (this_cpu_has(X86_BUG_CLFLUSH_MONITOR)) {
- smp_mb(); /* quirk */
+ mb(); /* quirk */
clflush((void *)¤t_thread_info()->flags);
- smp_mb(); /* quirk */
+ mb(); /* quirk */
}
__monitor((void *)¤t_thread_info()->flags, 0, 0)...
2016 Jan 28
10
[PATCH v5 0/5] x86: faster smp_mb()+documentation tweaks
mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's
2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs.
So we really should use the locked variant everywhere, except that intel manual
says that clflush is only ordered by mfence, so we can't.
Note: some callers of clflush seems to assume sfence will
order it, so there could be existing bugs around
2016 Jan 28
10
[PATCH v5 0/5] x86: faster smp_mb()+documentation tweaks
mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's
2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs.
So we really should use the locked variant everywhere, except that intel manual
says that clflush is only ordered by mfence, so we can't.
Note: some callers of clflush seems to assume sfence will
order it, so there could be existing bugs around
2016 Jan 27
6
[PATCH v4 0/5] x86: faster smp_mb()+documentation tweaks
mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's
2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs.
So we really should use the locked variant everywhere, except that intel manual
says that clflush is only ordered by mfence, so we can't.
Note: some callers of clflush seems to assume sfence will
order it, so there could be existing bugs around
2016 Jan 27
6
[PATCH v4 0/5] x86: faster smp_mb()+documentation tweaks
mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's
2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl that we use on older CPUs.
So we really should use the locked variant everywhere, except that intel manual
says that clflush is only ordered by mfence, so we can't.
Note: some callers of clflush seems to assume sfence will
order it, so there could be existing bugs around